|
|
METHOD Within a small, 12-credit, interdisciplinary seminar called The Human Enigma; 13 freshman students were asked to produce self- and peer-critiques of contribution to the seminar content and process. In the early weeks of the semester they were asked to examine themselves and what they have contributed to the seminar (Self-Critique #1). In subsequent weeks they were asked to critique the seminar contribution of each of their peers (one per week), anonymously. In the middle and at the end of the semester, they were asked to again examine their own contribution to the seminar content and process in light of the feedback they had received from their peers (Self-Critique #2 and #3). The process was as follows: As a class we attempted to define what constitutes a successful seminar (using our own criteria and that which has been developed by previous classes). We discussed both preparation (how they prepare for seminar, what they think good preparation looks like, which preparation processes work / help) and contribution (raising ideas, connecting ideas, facilitating process). Each student wrote a 2-3-page paper on his or her role in/participation in/contribution to the seminar. They were asked to address how they prepared for seminar, the types of questions you asked, ways in which they facilitated the discussion, the types and quality of notes that they took, whether they initiated ideas, built upon ideas, made connections (specifically). You also commented on expectations for themselves, how they fit into group dynamics, what they need to work on, etc. This first self-critique was due early on in the semester and was written in the 3rd person. It was posted in their private self-critique folder. Each student paid attention to one classmate per week (according to the peer critique sheet) examining the ideas they raised, ideas they connected, and ways in which they facilitated the discussion processbased on criteria generated by the class. They then wrote a 1-2-page (anonymous) critique of that persons strengths and weaknesses in terms of what they brought to the table using specific examples as evidence. Anonymous critiques were posted in that persons folder. Each student wrote 2 more Self-Critiques, one at the mid-semester and one at the end of the semester. Again, these were reflections of their own contribution to the seminar in light of the feedback, which they had received from their peers. They were posted in the students own private self-critique folder.
|
|
|
|
RESULTS - Students responded directly to the peer feedback (by either mentioning the peer comment; mentioning their response to that comment; and/or mentioning action that they had taken or planned to take) with increased frequency over the course of the semester. This indicates that students self-awareness had increased over time as a result of receiving and giving feedback in peer critiques.
- Increasing students metacognition of their own and their peers contribution to the seminar increased the frequency of action-oriented responses in the Self-Critiques over time. That is, as the semester went on, students were more likely in their Self-Critiques to mention that they had taken action or planned to take action to improve their contribution to the seminar.
- Four months after the completion of the course, the students from The Human Enigma were contacted and asked to comment on how the Peer- and Self-Critique component of the course affected their experience in the seminar. The student reflections were overwhelmingly positive (80%), with some useful criticism as well.
|
|
|
|
STUDENT RESPONSES TO THE CRITIQUES 1) THE CRITIQUES WERE VALUABLE (23%) "Now that I am in a class that doesnt have peer critiques I can really notice the difference. It is easier for students to slack because they dont have someone watching them and they dont know what they need to work on." 2) THE CRITQUES IMPACTED THE FUNCTIONING OF THE GROUP (16%) "The way it helped me was now I am more aware of peoples feelings and their emotions. As people, I believe we have, almost a responsibility, to understand how people feel and know what is going on in their heads." 3) THE CRITQUES IMPACTED THE SEMINAR PROCESS (14%) "I think that the overall seminar went better with using the peer critiques because everyone was aware of what needed to be done." 4) THE CRITIQUES IMPACTED MY LEARNING (5%) "Kate believes the peer critiques helped her as a learner. She learned about herself from the view of her classmates and made her realize what she needed to improve." 5) THE CRITIQUES IMPACTED MY SELF-AWARENESS (23%) "After having a class with peer critiques, I notice things that I could work on because of what my peers have told me. I am much more aware of my skills in the seminar." 6) I HAVE SOME CRITICISM OF THE CRITIQUES (19%) "After awhile I was getting the same feedback from every person, all mostly positive, and I'm sure there are things that I could change."
|
|
|
This process impacted my teaching in a number of ways. Most notably, it really made students accountable to one another instead of primarily trying to please and impress me. Thus the shift to a non-hierarchical seminar model of learning occurred much more quickly and seamlessly. I was afraid that the metacognition would get in the way of dealing with the content of the course, and I am happy to report that that did not seem to be the case at all. Metacognition (thinking about the learning process) via heightened awareness of self and peers creates does seem to create ownership of the course, which I believe ultimately serves to strengthen and deepen learning.
|
|
|